{"id":290614,"date":"2023-12-09T19:56:38","date_gmt":"2023-12-09T18:56:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=290614"},"modified":"2023-12-09T19:56:41","modified_gmt":"2023-12-09T18:56:41","slug":"the-sins-of-the-fathers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=290614","title":{"rendered":"The Sins of the\u00a0Fathers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CarbonBrief is at it again<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n


From Climate Scepticism<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

BY\u00a0MARK HODGSON<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not satisfied with its dubious piece<\/a>: \u201cAnalysis: Record-low price for UK offshore wind is nine times cheaper than gas\u201d<\/em> , CarbonBrief recently decided<\/a> to seek to ensure that Britain\u2019s falling down the rankings of cumulative greenhouse gas emitters is reversed. After all, it\u2019s essential that we here in the UK are made to pay for climate change, even if China has emitted more greenhouse gases in the last eight years than the UK has done since the industrial revolution<\/a>. Or, to put it another way (as the BBC did<\/a> as long ago as May 2021): \u201cChina emissions exceed all developed nations combined<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still, never mind all that, China is a developing country \u2013 apparently \u2013 so we must go easy on them. No, it\u2019s you and me who have to pay, and here\u2019s why. It\u2019s because we have to take colonial rule into account. And (this is the good bit if you hate the west and love India and China), when we attribute all greenhouse gas emissions from colonial countries to their colonial masters, hey presto! Suddenly the situation looks very different. OK, the USA still tops the cumulative league tables, and China is still in second place, but France\u2019s share increases by half, the UK\u2019s doubles [so the article says, but persevere with the article, and actually it increases by 70%, which is a long way from doubling], the Netherlands\u2019 nearly triples, Portugal\u2019s more than triples, and the EU and the UK collectively see their contributions rise by \u201cnearly a third\u201d, to 19% [later on the article says they rise by 28%, which is nearer to a quarter than to a third. I struggle to take seriously an article with such internal contradictions].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And that\u2019s not all. India\u2019s share falls<\/strong> by 15%, while Indonesia and the whole continent of Africa also see their contributions fall by 24%. Isn\u2019t that great? Now they can play the victim card with ever greater confidence, and it\u2019s so much harder to blame them for anything. We can conveniently ignore the fact that India is now the world\u2019s third largest greenhouse gas emitter on an annual basis<\/a>, we can concentrate instead on the fact cumulatively<\/strong> it now drops to seventh place. Instead, the UK is in fourth place (leaping up from eighth place, and helpfully leap-frogging India in the process) and Germany is in sixth (sadly moving up only from seventh place, but I suppose it\u2019s better than nothing). Excellent \u2013 make them<\/strong> pay!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s another sleight of hand that can be used to make the situation even worse for those former colonialists:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When weighted by current populations, the Netherlands (2,014tCO2 per person) and the UK (1,922tCO2) become the world\u2019s top emitters on a cumulative per-capita basis. They are followed by Russia (1,655tCO2), the US (1,560tCO2) and Canada (1,524tCO2).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On this per-capita measure, China (217tCO2 per person), the continent of Africa (92tCO2) and India (52tCO2) are far behind developed nations\u2019 contributions to warming.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This handily side-steps the fact that China\u2019s current day per capita emissions are higher \u2013 more than 50% higher \u2013 than those in the UK.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, give those former colonial powers a good kicking while they\u2019re down:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many former colonial powers are also net CO2 importers today. While data on CO2 imports and exports is limited, available figures further raise their shares of historical emissions.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding that last point, not only would I \u2013 in fairness \u2013 concede that there\u2019s something in it, it\u2019s a point I have in the past made myself<\/a>. I think it\u2019s probably the best argument in the whole CarbonBrief piece.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem with the main thesis is that it largely seems to be based upon deforestation taking place under colonial rule. The issue here is that it seems to attribute it all to the decision-making power of the colonial master in each case, regardless of the reason the deforestation took place or of who ordered it. It seems historically ignorant, given how much of \u2013 for instance \u2013 modern-day India\u2019s day-to-day rule under the British Empire was left to Indian princes<\/a>. Thus, to attribute everything that went on in India during this period to the UK is simply inaccurate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CarbonBrief\u2019s analysis seems to assume that native rulers and inhabitants failed to receive any benefit from what went on in their lands during the colonial period, and it denies them any agency at all. It is in fact an analysis based on a colonialist mindset that assumes the locals could do \u2013 and did \u2013 nothing for themselves and the Europeans did everything, decided everything, and were the only beneficiaries. Clearly this isn\u2019t the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CarbonBrief knows this, saying:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arguably, the true share of responsibility for current warming lies somewhere between these two extremes, where emissions are fully assigned to either the colonial powers or their former colonies.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arguably it does, but it doesn\u2019t seem to be how CarbonBrief\u2019s final analysis pans out. Instead, it\u2019s all our fault:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This analysis assigns full responsibility for past emissions to those with ultimate decision-making authority at the time, namely, the colonial rulers.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

CarbonBrief purport to rely heavily on the ideas expressed by Professor Beinert and Lotte Hughes in their 2007 book \u201cEnvironment and Empire\u201d, and sections of it are quoted about the colonial powers\u2019 hunger for natural resources, which is fair enough, so far as it goes. Strangely, however, another more noble point is made:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet, as colonial forests were denuded of their ability to produce high-quality timber, colonisation also led to the beginnings of \u201cconservationist practices and ideas\u201d, Beinart and Hughes write:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c[W]hile natural resources have been intensely exploited, a related process, the rise of conservationist practices and ideas, was also deeply rooted in imperial history. Large tracts of land have been reserved for forests, national parks or wildlife.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And it seems that the locals were not perhaps as denied of agency (or responsibility for forestry) as has been implied, since we are also told:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The book quotes Hugh Cleghorn, conservator of forests for the Madras presidency, writing in 1861 of the \u201ccareless rapacity of the native population\u2026who cut and cleared [forests]\u2026without being in any way under the control or regulation of authority\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We seem to receive no (carbon) credit for putting an end to that with the creation of an Indian Forest Department in 1864, even though surely credit is due?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And although the next quote is thrown in presumably to damn the British, it actually strikes me as being rather more exculpatory than damning (at least so far as deforestation and associated greenhouse gas emissions are concerned):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBritish imperial control of India had a major impact on its extraordinarily varied range of trees and forest products. It also restricted access to forests by poor people\u2026That later exclusion of humans from wildlife parks was also partly rooted in the forest laws of the colonial people, which treated local people as wasteful and destructive\u2026But pressures on the forest did not end with independence. The current rate of deforestation is said to be well over one million ha every year.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A similar point could be made regarding the behaviour of the Dutch in Indonesia. (The poor Dutch, by the way, move up from somewhere below 35 on the cumulative emissions scale to thirteenth place).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are treated to another quote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Dutch discovered the tobacco industry in Deli in the 1860s and created an industrial-scale plantation system. The local sultans collaborated and gave concessions of 1,000\u20132,000 hectares of land to each company in a 75-year lease. The Dutch colonial planters assumed that tobacco could only grow well in the soil that had just been cleared from the virgin jungle. Thus, the industry drove large-scale virgin forests clearing to produce tobacco leaves exported to Europe and America.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So who is responsible? The Dutch colonial planters or the local sultans who leased them the land? Or should responsibility be shared?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Be that all as it may, CarbonBrief really make hay with the concept of historical per capita assumptions. Obviously if countries with large populations (such as India or Indonesia) can transfer a great deal of responsibility for their emissions to countries with much smaller populations (such as the UK or the Netherlands) then a massively distorted result can be obtained. And so it is, and CarbonBrief loves it. It tells us that on this (rather convoluted) basis, colonial powers are the top cumulative emitters per population in 2023, while the likes of China and India are far behind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have to say, it takes overwhelming chutzpah to give China a free pass in this way, given that it is the second greatest cumulative emitter of greenhouse gas emissions (behind only the USA), that its current day per capita emissions greatly exceed those of the UK, and that it is building new coal-fired power stations at a rate of knots. Despite all that, on this clever new basis of allocating responsibility for emissions, China has less than one eighth of the responsibility of the Netherlands, India appears to have barely 5% of the responsibility of the UK. Surely even CarbonBrief appreciate that this is an illegitimate piece of legerdemain?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interestingly, the analysis seeks only to attribute responsibility from 1850, citing incomplete data among other reasons for this decision. However, read to the end of the article, and perhaps China isn\u2019t so innocent after all (though of course this piece of information is omitted from the final figures in the analysis):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The picture is a little different for LULUCF. Figures from OSCAR, one of the three bookkeeping models used for post-1850 LULUCF estimates, extend back as far as 1701.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

These figures show that some 93GtCO2 was released globally, during 1750-1850, equivalent to nearly 4% of the cumulative total from all sources during 1850-2023.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nearly a quarter of this total originates in China and would not be reassigned on the basis of colonial rule.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But ignoring this in the analysis is OK, because \u201c1850 is usually taken as the reference year for historical simulations and marks the starting point for temperature changes, which are generally measured against an 1850-1900 baseline.<\/em>\u201d Phew \u2013 that was close!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I conclude that the analysis is undoubtedly of interest, and I enjoyed reading it (honestly). However, it strikes me that its main purpose \u2013 especially given the timing of its release (26th<\/sup>\u00a0November 2023) was to provide ammunition to developing countries with huge carbon footprints ahead of the \u201closs and damage\u201d negotiations that are taking place at COP28. My only consolation is that it will probably prove to have been a waste of the authors\u2019 time, insofar as they may have hoped that it would facilitate payment, based on climate guilt, from developed to developing countries. I very much doubt that this will come to pass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CarbonBrief is at it again<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":290617,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"CarbonBrief is at it again","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691818341,691825183,691818076,691818237,691824173,691822439],"class_list":{"0":"post-290614","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-china","9":"tag-climate-guilt","10":"tag-co2","11":"tag-india","12":"tag-loss-and-damage","13":"tag-uk-offshore-wind","15":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0tornado-destruction-618718_1920.jpg?fit=1920%2C1275&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1dBk","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":223414,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=223414","url_meta":{"origin":290614,"position":0},"title":"The Lies Have It","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/12\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Let\u2019s look at the two key problems with that claim.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-539.png?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-539.png?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-539.png?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-539.png?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":302889,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=302889","url_meta":{"origin":290614,"position":1},"title":"Chickens Are Coming Home to\u00a0Roost","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/18\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"As we all know, the Guardian is a leading protagonist when it comes to proselytising about the \u201cclimate crisis\u201d and the \u201cneed\u201d for Net Zero. If you\u2019re an organisation which exists to push that agenda, then the Guardian will probably be happy to publish whatever you write, without first applying\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"CarbonBrief report\"","block_context":{"text":"CarbonBrief report","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbonbrief-report"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0iStock-667540576.jpg?fit=1200%2C619&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0iStock-667540576.jpg?fit=1200%2C619&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0iStock-667540576.jpg?fit=1200%2C619&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0iStock-667540576.jpg?fit=1200%2C619&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0iStock-667540576.jpg?fit=1200%2C619&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":348560,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=348560","url_meta":{"origin":290614,"position":2},"title":"Energy Justice in Africa? Energy Exceptionalism Please","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/23\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"A recent release from CarbonBrief, \u201cHow a UK government-backed Company has Fueled Gas Power in Africa,\u201d reported that \u201ca little-known company that is majority-owned by a UK government development body and backed by UK aid money has been pouring investment into gas power across Africa.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In \"Africa\"","block_context":{"text":"Africa","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=africa"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/00Screenshot-2024-10-23-111440.png?fit=1055%2C952&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/00Screenshot-2024-10-23-111440.png?fit=1055%2C952&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/00Screenshot-2024-10-23-111440.png?fit=1055%2C952&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/00Screenshot-2024-10-23-111440.png?fit=1055%2C952&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/00Screenshot-2024-10-23-111440.png?fit=1055%2C952&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":335406,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=335406","url_meta":{"origin":290614,"position":3},"title":"The Rejection of Environmentalism is a driving force behind the surging \u201cFar Right\u201d vote","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"07\/03\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"In the largest turnout since 1981, French voters chose the \u201cFar Right\u201d National Rally party in a record vote of 33 per cent. It is the first round of voting with the second on July 7th, but The Washington Post is already comparing the potentially \u201cshocking\u201d French election result with\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"CarbonBrief\"","block_context":{"text":"CarbonBrief","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbonbrief"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0le-pen.jpg?fit=1200%2C784&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0le-pen.jpg?fit=1200%2C784&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0le-pen.jpg?fit=1200%2C784&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0le-pen.jpg?fit=1200%2C784&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0le-pen.jpg?fit=1200%2C784&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":230780,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=230780","url_meta":{"origin":290614,"position":4},"title":"The Future of COPs","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"11\/24\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The organisers of COP100 must provide 10 times more parking spots for private jets and nearly an infinite supply of strong coffee.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/0four-horsemen-of-the-apocalyps.jpeg?fit=1200%2C480&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/0four-horsemen-of-the-apocalyps.jpeg?fit=1200%2C480&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/0four-horsemen-of-the-apocalyps.jpeg?fit=1200%2C480&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/0four-horsemen-of-the-apocalyps.jpeg?fit=1200%2C480&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/0four-horsemen-of-the-apocalyps.jpeg?fit=1200%2C480&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":264052,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=264052","url_meta":{"origin":290614,"position":5},"title":"Uncertain Uncertainties","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/27\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Here, from a post at the\u00a0CarbonBrief website,\u00a0is an example of some trends and their claimed associated uncertainties. The uncertainties (95% confidence intervals in this instance) are indicated by the black \u201cwhisker bars\u201d that extend below and above each data point.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate models\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate models","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-models"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0uncertainty.jpg?fit=1200%2C791&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0uncertainty.jpg?fit=1200%2C791&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0uncertainty.jpg?fit=1200%2C791&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0uncertainty.jpg?fit=1200%2C791&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0uncertainty.jpg?fit=1200%2C791&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/290614","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=290614"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/290614\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":290618,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/290614\/revisions\/290618"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/290617"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=290614"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=290614"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=290614"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}